mspaintadventuresfandomcom-20200224-history
Talk:Quadrants
Kanaya/Vriska I'm not sure that there's really any evidence to say that Kanaya has mating fondness for Vriska. Given the context, it seems to me that she is more upset over unknowingly having helped to maniupulate Tavros- but that's just what I see there. Any other opinions on what to do with this? ZeldaFan 14:56, August 11, 2010 (UTC) i was never this wrong about anything in my entire life ZeldaFan (talk) 18:50, October 24, 2015 (UTC) If "getting tricked into manipulating Tavros" were what she was upset about, then her reaction would have been pretty nonsensical-- she was in tears, and all she saw was the kiss. At any rate, I would have more sympathy for that interpretation if Andrew hadn't more or less confirmed that it was because she had feelings for Vriska. Majutsukai 20:57, August 11, 2010 (UTC) Remember, trolls value all four kinds of romance equally to human love. The romance between Tavros and Vriska means that Kanaya failed utterly as an auspitice, which seems like a sufficiently heartbreaking event to produce the results in the comic. 01:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC) And Kanaya's mating fondness for Vriska seems to be confirmed. ZeldaFan 19:01, August 15, 2010 (UTC) Okay, so, maybe I missed something, but how exactly does Nepeta's shipping wall confirm Kanaya for Tavros?01:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)EI * Doesn't. Majutsukai 09:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC) * Try watching the animation on for a while. You do mean Kanaya for Vriska, correct? There's nothing to suggest a relationship between Kanaya and Tavros besides Auspistice. ZeldaFan 19:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC) * No, they meant Kanaya for Tavros. There's nothing there because I removed it after I responded to this. Majutsukai 22:34, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Nepeta/Terezi It's obvious from reading the chatlog that Terezi was trolling Nepeta, sarcastically indulging her roleplaying. Not being romantic. * Agreed. Majutsukai 01:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Terezi/Karkat Why isn't this on there I feel this is and has been obvious for ages. 16:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC) *It is, check under Matespritship. Nimryel 16:34, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Mating Fondness/Matespritship Is there any point to seperating these two? It is my understanding that they are the same thing. Also, if they weren't, it would be mostly speculation whether a relationship is one or the other unless we are expressly told. Nimryel 23:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC) They aren't separate. Majutsukai 10:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Ah, it was fixed. Nevermind then. Nimryel 10:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Moirail I don't want to edit anything myself, because I may be wrong, but the definition for a moraillegience doesn't seem to be entirely accurate (possibly). http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=004301 tells that the moirail keeps the other troll in line. While it is true that Equius tries to keep his moirail out of trouble, Nepetas job as the moirail is to "pacify" Equius, so to speak. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the statement on the wiki. Either way, I thought it'd be best to mention this, just in case! Nobody404 05:56, September 4, 2010 (UTC) Feferi/Sollux Matespiritship So how is this unconfirmed? He calls her his girlfriend in SKanaya: Return to the Core and Feferi has enough of a thing for him to kiss him enthusiastically when he's covered in blood and stuff. *I already thought it was fishy (cough) that it was listed there, but you're absolutely right! Fixing. Gamzee/Karkat Gamzee/Karkat? http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=005995 yes MaximusAwesomus 20:45, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Apocalyptic Colors I'm sort of a n00b to the fandom, but am I out of line noticing that the four quadrants correspond roughly to the colors of the four horses of the apocalypse: Red (war), Black (famine), Ashen/White (pestilence), Pale (death) - or is this something that's already come up multiple times and been discounted? ( 13:32, October 25, 2011 (UTC)) Karkat/Jade Should something be added about Karkat/Jade? It is evident that Karkat has some red feelings towards Jade, although there is no signs whether this is unrequited or not. 09:37, October 28, 2011 (UTC) It is in fact unrequited because she has never said anything about liking him. Oh great now my words are crossed out :( MaximusAwesomus 20:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Quadrant Vacillation OK so just made this up - http://i.imgur.com/LI5CH.png - I think we should have a proper diagram to show a Quadrangle so that's kinda what we need so if anyone can make one that isn't complete shit that would be excellent. The Light6 09:35, March 18, 2012 (UTC) :how's this? 14:00, March 18, 2012 (UTC) ::That's excellent and shows it perfectly. The Light6 15:13, March 18, 2012 (UTC) Auspistice / Kismesissitude :"Auspisticized pairs include ... all of whom have been shown to be potentially caliginous to some degree, suggesting the emotions between two auspisticized trolls are similar to but distinct from those of kismeses." I think I can explain this but it might be complicated so I am going to put this here and hope someone can simplify it for the article, maybe. Anyhow going to focus on Spades/Snowman. Karkat claimed Kismesissitude required true passionate hate (along with sexual attraction I guess but that's besides the point), Auspisticing is all about moderating hate. Spades and Snowman had such a hate with each other (along with the attraction) which allowed them to become Kismeses. However when Scratch interfered and Auspisticized between them moderating their hate the Kismesissitude was broken, so even if the attraction remained the hate wasn't strong enough. Also while not that relevant to all that: :"Andrew explains that if the mediator does a poor job or is uninterested in keeping the peace, the two might delve into more torrid emotions" While Scratch moderated between them to break the Kismesissitude he had no interest in maintaining their relationship and thus sabotaged it causing the hate to re-flare into pure unbridled hate as opposed to the passionate hate of Kismesissitude which resulted in Spades killing Snowman. The Light6 02:10, April 1, 2012 (UTC) Discussion Request: Nepeta Shipping Walls I just had an edit partially reverted, almost immediately. In my edit, I stated Nepeta keeps track of romances in various quadrants. The edit restricted this back to redrom-only shipping, with reason given: word of Huss. Perhaps Andrew at one time said Nepeta only ships redrom, but this stopped being true as of Equius: Seek the Highblood. Nepeta's shipping wall inside the asteroid clearly shows blackrom pairings and triplings, and she even discusses them, e.g. (paraphrased from memory) "how can I be the only one that sees pair: Terezi & Vriska". So I appreciate reliance on Andrew Hussie comments for canon hedging, but I assume E:StH is more canonical than offsite conversations. Nepeta ships blackrom. I will be polite and await consensus before trying to re-edit. <3< TricksterWolf 01:09, May 2, 2012 (UTC) :Equius Seek the Highblood seems to be a somewhat of a exception. It is stated while she does not like blackrom, it would make sense she likes only certain ships. Maybe we can add something about that? Chezrush 23:47, May 1, 2012 (UTC) ::I don't think it's really an "exception". She has two shipping walls in the comic. On one, it only shows redrom, and on the other, it shows far fewer combinations of pairings (keeping only the ones she feels are most likely) but the second wall includes blackrom pairings. Where is it stated she doesn't like keeping track of blackrom pairings? If this comes from Andrew it should be stated. ::I think describing that Nepeta is seen with two walls and the first one had no blackrom is fine (as it does in other pages), but if it's just an aside comment about the fact she ships, it is probably misleading to imply she ships redrom only. TricksterWolf 01:09, May 2, 2012 (UTC) ::That is true. I don't know why the link is not there (probably because it was on his formspring, even though there are tons of stuff that has his formspring stuff.) We should probably change it now. Chezrush 01:16, May 2, 2012 (UTC) :: . 14:49, May 2, 2012 (UTC) Page rename I mentioned in the IRC that is need to be renamed however agreeing on an exact name didn't happen, so bring it here to get a community feel for it. * Quadrants - Using the exact name as found in the comics. **''Aepokk Venset 23:39, June 22, 2012 (UTC)'' ** **Per Ankh ED 14:35, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ** 14:44, July 5, 2012 (UTC) **'Neumannz, [[User talk:Neumannz|''The Dark Falcon]]' (Other Talk) 17:46, July 5, 2012 (UTC) *Romantic Quadrants - A more descriptive naming. ** 02:33, July 5, 2012 (UTC)'' **''The Light6 02:41, July 5, 2012 (UTC)'' *Romance Quadrants - A variant descriptive name. **'' 08:33, June 23, 2012 (UTC)'' **''EskayFlying 09:28, June 23, 2012 (UTC)'' **''Chezrush 12:34, June 23, 2012 (UTC) Feel free to sign below the option you support, note: This will only help be a deciding factor, and so make comments below to back your vote. The Light6 22:37, June 22, 2012 (UTC) Could you please say a little more about why the name needs to change? I'd like to know a little more about the criteria we're trying to improve by. EskayFlying 04:04, June 23, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, why's the name being changed? I think it works fine. --Bettafishrule2579 04:09, June 23, 2012 (UTC) :Because the page clearly isn't limited to troll relationships, also the fact that what trolls refer to as Matespritship is basically the exact same thing as human romance and the fact that from what we've read cherubs also have Kismesissitude. Basically it is misleading to call it troll relationships when one quarter of it applies to humans and other quarter applies to cherubs too. Even ignoring the technical stuff behind the terminology we are listing relations for each quadrants, some of those relationships completely lacking a troll partaking in the relationship. The Light6 04:18, June 23, 2012 (UTC) Quadrants isn't descriptive enough imo, as it is a pretty common term that also applies to other things. I signed for Romance Quadrants, but I am okay with Romantic Quadrants too. 08:33, June 23, 2012 (UTC) Is that enough people to get a feel? --EskayFlying 02:06, July 5, 2012 (UTC) :Well I would probably prefer more, however taking into account my opinion (I didn't sign at first because I didn't want to influence the results with my bias) and the opinion of another admin who hasn't signed either. We have 4 for a descriptive name and 2 for the exact name. I will probably ask some other regular editors if they would like to give an opinion to see if that makes a difference or not. The Light6 02:27, July 5, 2012 (UTC) Romance Quadrants to me is a fragment that doesn't really mesh. Romantic Quadrants has the first word describing the second, whereas with the other one it's two nouns, and they don't really jive, you know what I mean? But yes, I do agree that change needs to take place for the reasons detailed above, and I wouldn't mind Romantic Quadrants or, I suppose, Quadrants. Romance Quadrants just sends grammar shivers down my spine, though. 02:33, July 5, 2012 (UTC) :EDIT CONFLICT: I feel the same way, which is why it surprised me that up until now all the descriptive name votes have been for "Romance Quadrants". But yeah with 5 votes up might as well actually add my own vote. The Light6 02:41, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ::EDIT CONFLICT: Two main criteria when naming pages. Firstly and taking priority over other criteria: what is the exact name used in the comic? Unless there's a specific problem with doing so (generally disambiguation), we should always default to that. If there is no canon name, or if there's flexibility, then we should work to the principle of "don't make the title longer than necessary". It's not the title's job to be descriptive, that's what the opening paragraph is for. The only thing that should affect the criteria is disambiguation; there's nothing that quadrants need disambiguating from, therefore "Quadrants" is sufficient. ::Also I'd like to say that if we do end up with a two-word title, please don't capitalise the extra word ::EDIT: Also, I agree with Jimcloud, "Romance Quadrants" is grammatically unpleasant, and we don't want that in a page title. It should either be "Quadrants" or "Romantic quadrants", but as I say, I very strongly favour just "Quadrants" I pick Quadrants. Per Ankh ED 03:15, July 5, 2012 (UTC) :Definitely just Quadrants. 14:18, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Then sign under it, please...? It's not a vote per se, but it helps to clearly see who prefers what all at the top :::Oops, sorry am writing up last month's billing reports for my work and could have sworn I signed under that lol. 14:44, July 5, 2012 (UTC) :When should we rename it? Or should seeing as it's been a while since someone voted and that quadrants got the most votes } 03:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::Most wikias will wait no more than a week of lack of responses before enacting upon a vote, one place I know of waits only three days. 13:03, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::Sorry with the hiatus my attention to the wiki drifted slightly, that and real life stuff started happening again, but yeah I'll make a decision on it now, move imminent. The Light6 (talk) 13:11, July 26, 2012 (UTC) :::Np though wouldn't it be better to have an area specifically for voting, instead of losing cotes in the talk pages? 14:07, July 26, 2012 (UTC) Rose/Kanaya and Sollux/Feferi Why is Rose/Kanaya listed as a definite matespritship while Sollux/Feferi is only possible? Kanaya's only response to Meenah asking if they were together was "Maybe", yet if my memory serves me correctly Feferi and Sollux were implictly referred to as matesprits during S Kanaya: Return to the Core. 22:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC) I suspect that this is because Sollux and Feferi's relationship changed after her death, and his half death. If I remember correctly, it's been implied that he's now with Aradia. Things change. As for Rose and Kanaya, knowing the character, that's as pretty close to a yes, though it has not actually been outright stated. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:56, August 31, 2012 (UTC) I took Kanaya's "Maybe" to mean "almost," not a definite "yes." Something like "I want us to be, and I'm pretty sure she reciprocates, but we're not in sloppy interspecies makeout land yet." Just me? I do think it belongs under "possible" for now (in case my IP has reset, I'm the one who added it under "possible" before it was moved) (also the one who added all those categories, sorry about that) (probably gonna register in about thirty seconds). 02:20, September 1, 2012 (UTC) I agree, possible makes more sense, though, with Meenah's reaction, and knowing Kanaya, I can see where someone would take it to mean yes. 04:54, September 1, 2012 (UTC) (Er, I forgot to log in before submitting this.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:01, September 1, 2012 (UTC) All right - me again - any objections to me moving it back? I'm giving it 24 hours. TwinBird (talk) 07:15, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Terminology for unrequited romantic feelings IMO we should refer to unrequited feelings with terminology such as "Kanaya's flushed crush on Vriska.", "Karkat's caliginous crush on John" or "Karkat's vacillating feelings for Terezi". Referring to Nepeta as Karkat's "unrequited matesprit" is sort of like referring to her as his "unrequited girlfriend". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:55, September 20, 2012 (UTC) :That does seem to be a better wording imo... 12:57, September 25, 2012 (UTC) :Crush seems like a pretty good word to use for it :I too like this better, so I've made the change throughout this article. EskayFlying (talk) 19:59, September 26, 2012 (UTC) :I should've mentioned this 3 weeks ago when it was first suggested that I support it, also I changed a bunch of infoboxes over to this terminology so more wiki readers/editors will catch on and use it. One issue I had when doing it, and it appears EskayFlying had too, it how to apply it to the Ashen quadrant. I mean I can think of 3 different ways to define an ashen crush. - The Light6 (talk) 09:20, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Hm, I would say that an ashen crush is Kanaya's near perpetual state of being. A desire to auspistictise. It's a very peculiar relationship, since it's not mutual between two people; one could say the participants are one person and one caliginously-inclined relationship. The relationship can be a crush (e.g. caliginously), but cannot have one on the mediator. ::To take perhaps the best example we have to hand, I wouldn't say Eridan is ashen-crushing on Kanaya when he asks her to auspisticise between him and Vriska. He's caliginous-crushing on Vriska, and just wants Kanaya roped in – he specifically calls her the third wheel, implying she's something of an afterthought – to stabilise it. Whereas Kanaya's "meddling" demonstrates that she is interested in pursuing the mediating role in ashen relationships, which is more easily comparable to a crush. ::It's certainly complicated though : / Sollux/Gamzee - what? Why is no-one asking for these Sollux/Gamzee crushes to be removed? It has been discussed before, the scene where Sollux is looking at Gamzee and his eyes show both hearts and spades means he doesn't know if Karkat and Gamzee are in any of those quadrants with each other, it doesn't have to do with himself and Gamzee. I say remove them. :Because the scene makes clear that it is Sollux's feelings. Take Kanaya, she is known for auspictising, her bubble shops Karkat and Gamzee in the ashen quadrant, given how the ashen quadrant actually works even if we chose to ignore Kanaya's affinity for the quadrant, the bubble would make zero sense unless it is interpreted as Kanaya's feelings. So the bubbles are clearly established as the feelings each character has, unless you are suggesting the purpose of the bubbles is changing between characters, which makes zero sense it itself. Plus we have Terezi's black feelings for Gamzee first shown, which we know are confirmed due to their subsequent kismesis, and if Terezi's bubble was supposed to be her thinking Karkat and Gamzee were black for each other, why not show both their faces like Kanaya's bubble, as opposed to just Gamzee's? Which of course leads back to Sollux. :The point is that simply watching the scene makes it clear exactly what is happening, it isn't ambiguous in the slightest. That is why Sollux is listed as having both red and black feelings for Gamzee, and why that mention will not be removed from the page. - The Light6 (talk) 02:49, December 10, 2013 (UTC) :::It still seems so weird. He never ever shows any of those feelings towards Gamzee again, either before OR after this scene. He barely speaks to him. Even if he was suddenly struck by Gamzee's behaviour at that very moment, I don't think those would qualify as listable, confirmed and stable "crushes". It was a volatile thing, born in the spur of the moment, plus him being confused about said feelings makes it all the more questionable, in my honest opinion. 16:24, April 17, 2014 (UTC) Name fixing It's come to my attention that a lot of the terms on this page actually happen to be misspelled, and to make matters worse they appear to be spelled inconsistently within the comic itself. 08:35, January 2, 2014 (UTC) :Well unless examples are provided from the comic I don't think we can even start on that discussion. That being said I did a quick ctrl+f search through the search pages for matesprit; it is consistent throughout the comic, so unless it was misspelt in a walkaround that term is at least consistent. I haven't searched the other ones yet. - The Light6 (talk) 09:02, January 2, 2014 (UTC) ::I'm too tired right now to provide a solid basis hence the poor form of the start to this discussion, but see: moiraillegiance/moirallegiance/morallegiance(?) 09:49, January 2, 2014 (UTC) :::A quick search says that moirallegiance has been used consistently in-comic and that moiraillegiance and morallegiance have never been used. We did have one instance of moiraillegiance on this page, which is clearly an error, so I corrected that, no instances of morallegiance on the page. - The Light6 (talk) 10:18, January 2, 2014 (UTC) ::::I could've sworn I saw inconsistency in the search pages... I'll check again later. But yeah the partner terms are fine, it's the ones referring to the actual relationship that I think may have gotten messed up. EDT: also I seriously need to go to bed now, later. 10:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC) General thing Does anyone else actually find this concept easy to grasp? The article says humans are supposed to find it confusing, and I'm a human. I think I'm gonna start defining my relationships this way, in fact. :Go tell your grandparents about it, see how well they understand. :Check out the Leprechaun's relationshipping if you want to be more confused. 05:54, February 22, 2014 (UTC) ::Yeah idk about blackrom (both quadrants) as much, but from what I've seen a huge percentage of the fans have identified real-life Moirails for themselves (myself included). 06:00, February 22, 2014 (UTC) :::True, most to all humans would not understand blackrom. At least not really... 06:49, February 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::In any case, for the purposes of the story, they're supposed to be hard for the human characters to grasp. Even after hanging out with the trolls on the meteor for three years, Dave and Rose are still pretty confused about how they're supposed to work. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:24, February 22, 2014 (UTC) Vacillating Quadrants Examples I find that the comment about Sollux having vacillating feelings for Gamzee is a bit misunderstood. In that flash, Kanaya asks Karkat if she should auspice, and he turns her down. Then, Terezi asks if it is a black quadrant, and Karkat says no. Then we see Sollux, rambling blind in the corner like an idiot about romance, talking to lil'cal. Karkat leaves him to continue rambling. It is unknown whether or not this is a crush, and Sollux may simply be trying to ask Karkat about Karkat's quadrants. It can be speculated either way, so I find describing it as a vacillating "crush" to be a bit inaccurate (and fueling of horrible ships, in my personal opinion). 05:42, March 27, 2014 (UTC) ebony :That really makes no sense with what we see in the Flash. What we are seeing is everyone's feelings and then Karkat goes around and shoosh-paps everyone to calm down. Hell, Terezi outright explains the origins of her caliginous feeling as starting here, which is what we see in the Flash, Terezi's black feelings for Gamzee. - The Light6 (talk) 05:53, March 27, 2014 (UTC) :::How can you be 100% sure about this, when there is no text in the animation? I agree with OP, they seem to be graphic representations of what they are talking about, of what they are expressing. I've read about this theory before and it makes so much sense. Terezi turning black for Gamzee could perfectly be a coincidence. Kanaya always sees/tries auspisticism, whenever she sees some dispute going on. Karkat could be simply calming them down or, as OP said, negating their theories. Just because Terezi/Gamzee and Kanaya/whateverAuspistice makes sense that doesn't mean Sollux/Gamzee does, it's absurd. 16:33, April 17, 2014 (UTC) Spelling mistake In the article of Auspistice is a spelling mistake. Go look it up. 10:40, November 15, 2014 (UTC) :Then why wouldn't you just fix it? Also you're not being very specific, this is pretty unhelpful. 11:58, November 15, 2014 (UTC) ::There are 10 instances of "auspistice" in the article, simply saying there is a word spelt wrong without saying where in the article it is and what the error is not really helpfully. In any case I did manage to identify the error with a bunch of Ctrl+Fing and minor adjustment of the search term and going over the article multiple times. - The Light6 (talk) 13:45, November 15, 2014 (UTC) ::I can't edit the page. 11:20, November 16, 2014 (UTC) Category Shouldn't this belong in the Homestuck Concepts category? 13:48, April 29, 2015 (UTC) :Yes. One second. 03:23, April 30, 2015 (UTC) human examples? a while ago someone added john/roxy to a list of "possible matesprits". i know that by now they're pretty much guaranteed to be a thing in homestuck, but should we have them when the article is about troll relationships? also, john has stated that he is not dating roxy, though the two have pretty obvious romantic interest in each other. something we could do there is put a separate subheading of human examples of matespritship and related, mentioning other relationships or crushes in homestuck between humans (e.g. jake used to be in a relationship with dirk), noting that it's debatable whether those count as matespritship. Cookiefonster (talk) 20:13, June 4, 2015 (UTC) :I'm not sure the distinction needs to be made; Hussie basically compared it to "the form of romance we're familiar with" ages ago in the original quadrants infodump, I believe, and with examples like RoseKan and Johnrezi, especially when the conversation surrounding the latter suggested humans can feel emotions even as alien as kismesissitude, is there really a point to having separate sections for humans? EDIT: Not to mention, humans are used as an example of the quadrant. Also, wow, they aren't listed here yet??? Wow??? 20:52, June 4, 2015 (UTC) DaveJade DaveJade? I have seen that on panel 005042 that she typed <3 could this have meant anything? : No. She typed hearts after basically all of her conversations in the early acts, as well as in between them sometimes. Also, sign your discussion stuff. CrowdControlOS (talk) 22:15, November 3, 2017 (UTC) Dirk/Jake I believe it was implied numerous time by Jake and Dirk that the Flushed relationship they had has expired. For reference look at Dave and Dirk's conversation here, or at some of Jake's conversations with Roxy (before they got to God-Tier), Erisolsprite, and Tavrosprite. Noammac (talk) 20:30, April 21, 2016 (UTC) Ambiguous moirallegiances Clearly this needs to be taken to the talk page, I can recognize when I'm maybe being biased and I realized this was starting to become an edit war, so let's talk reasoning. I agreed with removing John and Dave from the possible moirails section not only because they're humans, but because the dynamic doesn't seem to be there. The disagreement with others - Kanaya (for?) Karkat, Porrim for Kankri, Meenah/Aranea - probably stems from different definitions, so we should talk about this. To me, a moirail is primarily deeply invested in keeping their partner grounded and keeping them from doing reckless shit which is often harmful to themself or others, and I think these all fit. Hell, I might reconsider John and Dave on those grounds. So.. thoughts? 17:32, December 29, 2017 (UTC) :No. Mamaopapaya (talk) 19:07, December 29, 2017 (UTC) ::Mamaopapaya, it would be appreciated if you actually... discussed instead of just ignoring the discussion altogether - if your response is going to be one word, why bother responding at all? Anyways, Moirallegiance, as I understand, is more than just a basic friendship - it involves a lot of discussion of issues to keep each other grounded and to help advise each other with decisions. In the case of John and Dave, this isn't really the case - they're just friends who make stupid jokes together. I always have the feeling that Kanaya is always striving to get Karkat to talk about his feelings, similarly to how she keeps attempting to auspistice everyone - she wants to make sure everyone's relationships are stable. A clearly similar dynamic is present with Porrim for Kankri, as seen in interactions in Openbound, no matter how much he hates it (due to his vow of celibacy). Aranea is also always trying to ground Meenah's actions and make sure she doesn't do anything rash - Meenah attempts this too when she goes off the deep end and causes a GAME OVER, but it's clearly failed in that instance. In the end, you're right, Mamaopapaya, friendship isn't the same thing, but I feel like these aren't instances of simply friendship. :::You're right, I shouldn't ever have wavered on John and Dave, I guess I was primarily second guessing it because of the whole doomed timeline where Terezi killed him, but like. One instance of telling your friend not to be reckless and die does not a moirallegiance make, especially for two humans. Friendship definitely isn't the same thing, but I wasn't trying to categorize those other three pairs as possible moirails / pale crushes because they're like friends, it's exactly for the patterns in the relationships between them that ylime described. If we do add this back to the page, is there possibly reason to change it to Kanaya for Karkat? Because I can't exactly recall him looking out for her in the same way. 20:53, December 29, 2017 (UTC) :::Sorry, the "no" was about the interpretation of what morails were. Mamaopapaya (talk) 21:02, December 29, 2017 (UTC)